How Much Damage Does My T-Rex Do?

[Ravens_cry]

I'm trying to figure out how much damage a T-Rex animal companion with Strongjaw, Animal Growth, and Improved Natural Attack does, as the dice increases don't seem to match, and a T-rex seems to have a two-sizes larger, going by the die code, bite attack, though it does not explicitly say this, which adds stacking confusion.

[Necromancy]

I'm trying to figure out how much damage a T-Rex animal companion with Strongjaw, Animal Growth, and Improved Natural Attack does, as the dice increases don't seem to match, and a T-rex seems to have a two-sizes larger, going by the die code, bite attack, though it does not explicitly say this, which adds stacking confusion.

Improved natural attack comes first
3d6
Well strongjaw is 2 sizes, animal growth is 1,
That jumps you to 8d6 if it's all permissible

[Ravens_cry]

Improved natural attack comes first
3d6
Well strongjaw is 2 sizes, animal growth is 1,
That jumps you to 8d6 if it's all permissible
I'm pretty sure it is, as only one of those increases increases your actual size.

[grarrrg]

a T-rex seems to have a two-sizes larger, going by the die code, bite attack, though it does not explicitly say this, which adds stacking confusion.

It doesn't actually matter what 'how' they got the base damage to start with. All that matters is that that is your Base Damage.


I'm trying to figure out how much damage a T-Rex animal companion with Strongjaw, Animal Growth, and Improved Natural Attack does, as the dice increases don't seem to match

Also, there's a NEW FAQ! (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t5u) that kills part of the 'fun' of this...
You can have _one_ actual size increase, and _one_ effective size increase in play. More than one of either you just 'take best'.

So Animal Growth is fine, as that is 'actual' increase.
Strong Jaw is worth +2 effective sizes, Imp. Natural Attack is only +1 effective size, so Strong Jaw wins.

So you're looking at a total of +3 sizes.
There's a FAQ for that too (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t3f).

[Ravens_cry]

*repeats mantra* FAQ isn't RAW, FAQ isn't raw, FAQ isn't RAW.:smalleek:

[Psyren]

*repeats mantra* FAQ isn't RAW, FAQ isn't raw, FAQ isn't RAW.:smalleek:

It is in Pathfinder actually.

[Ravens_cry]

It is in Pathfinder actually.
*flips table* Bah and humbug!:smallyuk:

[BWR]

*repeats mantra* FAQ isn't RAW, FAQ isn't raw, FAQ isn't RAW.:smalleek:

Why does it matter if it is or isnt'; it's RAI and that's far more important.

[Psyren]

Why does it matter if it is or isnt'; it's RAI and that's far more important.

Blasphemy! Designer intent is unknowable even if they plainly tell you that intent themselves!

Praise be to RAW.

[Ravens_cry]

Blasphemy! Designer intent is unknowable even if they plainly tell you that intent themselves!

Praise be to RAW.
The problem is that I see is the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing. So you have a rule that gets published developed by individual developer and then another posts online when a question comes up and, ba;m, that becomes 'official'.

[Psyren]

The problem is that I see is the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing. So you have a rule that gets published developed by individual developer and then another posts online when a question comes up and, ba;m, that becomes 'official'.

All rulings in the FAQ come from the entire design team. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qusu&page=2?Magical-Nonmagical-size-increases-and-stacking#85) The original designer who made whatever needs clarifying would thus either be a part of that, or no longer with the company - either way, the clarification would stand.

[Ravens_cry]

All rulings in the FAQ come from the entire design team. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qusu&page=2?Magical-Nonmagical-size-increases-and-stacking#85) The original designer who made whatever needs clarifying would thus either be a part of that, or no longer with the company - either way, the clarification would stand.
I find that hard to believe that the whole company is behind the idea, if a single spell hits the limit, when Core spell plus a Bestiary feat hits the limit.
The whole thing feels arbitrary, and if you run the numbers, it only hinders already weak options mostly. Specifically, Vital Strike Natural Weapon builds. You'll chuck handfuls of dice, but there is better ways to do damage and better ways to take out enemies than damage.

[Psyren]

I find that hard to believe that the whole company is behind the idea, if a single spell hits the limit, when Core spell plus a Bestiary feat hits the limit.

They're a pretty small company when you get right down to it, so it's not that hard to believe they can get all the devs in a room. But yes, they have explicitly stated that if the PDT posts something, it was after discussion among the whole team.

Note however that they have reversed rulings in the past - it doesn't happen often and usually leans more conservative when it does, but it's a possibility.

[atemu1234]

They're a pretty small company when you get right down to it, so it's not that hard to believe they can get all the devs in a room. But yes, they have explicitly stated that if the PDT posts something, it was after discussion among the whole team.

Note however that they have reversed rulings in the past - it doesn't happen often and usually leans more conservative when it does, but it's a possibility.

Basically. It's different from the Olden days of Yore, when WoTC didn't listen to its own people when they explained stuff.

[Necromancy]

It's 6d6 damage instead of 8d6. There's no need to quibble over 7 damage. Just find other ways to stack str. Steal the party fighters belt and make a t-wrex collar!